[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

And what will that power do in a global economy? Not much.

With companies being mobile and able to move operations all over the World, the power of the union is irrelevant when the doors are closed.

Maybe not much, but something. You are starting to see more labour unrest in the US. The recent protests advocating for higher minimum wages (Fight for $15) have been the largest labour marches since the the heyday of the unions. With the transfer of wealth to the so-callled one percenters, a reinvigoration of the labour movement seems due.

[OnTheIce]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Maybe not much, but something. You are starting to see more labour unrest in the US. The recent protests advocating for higher minimum wages (Fight for $15) have been the largest labour marches since the the heyday of the unions. With the transfer of wealth to the so-callled one percenters, a reinvigoration of the labour movement seems due.

Any 'movement' will have little effect. This isn't the early 1900's where the economy was local and heavy on infrastructure.

Many would argue that the big labour these days has ignored the groups of people who need employment the most, often cherry picking the demographics that have the most political gain.

Most are still considered part of the "old boys club" and do a fair bit to hide the stats of visible minorities and immigrants within their ranks....those that need jobs the most.

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Any 'movement' will have little effect. This isn't the early 1900's where the economy was local and heavy on infrastructure.

Many would argue that the big labour these days has ignored the groups of people who need employment the most, often cherry picking the demographics that have the most political gain.

Most are still considered part of the "old boys club" and do a fair bit to hide the stats of visible minorities and immigrants within their ranks....those that need jobs the most.

That's what's interresting about the Fight for $15 movement. It was actually a lot of established unions fighting for poor workers they didn't represent--something they haven't traditionally done. And the work is already paying off. There are a lot of cities moving to $15/hour minimum. Walmart recenly raised its starting salry 40% in the US.

A strong labour movement could be an effective counterweight to the shrinking middle class.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

You are starting to see more labour unrest in the US.

Yes, you are. More states than ever have implemented "right to work" laws that prohibit mandatory union membership in order to get a job. Consequently the labor revolution here is one where workers are taking back the power they had once entrusted to the corrupt, mobbed-up, Democrat-run unions.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Yes, you are. More states than ever have implemented "right to work" laws that prohibit mandatory union membership in order to get a job. Consequently the labor revolution here is one where workers are taking back the power they had once entrusted to the corrupt, mobbed-up, Democrat-run unions.

Taking back their power? With the flight of moeny to the top 1%, how is that taking back the power? With companies closing down factories here so they can set up sweatshops that would not be legal here, how is that taking back power? With wages declinging in real terms, and, as this article charges, jobs being more temprary, how is that taking back power?

The 25 right to work states also have high rates of unemployment in comparison to states that do not have that legislation, so it's kind of perverse to call that "right" to work. And they have average lower salaries than states that don't have right to work legislation.

So it doesn't "bring back power" to the worker. Quite the contrary, it just tips the scales even more in favour of the corporations.

[OnTheIce]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

A strong labour movement could be an effective counterweight to the shrinking middle class.

Highly unlikely. What comes along with higher wages? Higher prices.

All of those people that have a new higher hourly wage will find their take-home income stay relatively static due to the inevitable rise in cost due to the increase in wages.

[OnTheIce]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Yes, you are. More states than ever have implemented "right to work" laws that prohibit mandatory union membership in order to get a job. Consequently the labor revolution here is one where workers are taking back the power they had once entrusted to the corrupt, mobbed-up, Democrat-run unions.

Taking back their power? With the flight of moeny to the top 1%, how is that taking back the power? With companies closing down factories here so they can set up sweatshops that would not be legal here, how is that taking back power? With wages declinging in real terms, and, as this article charges, jobs being more temprary, how is that taking back power?

The 25 right to work states also have high rates of unemployment in comparison to states that do not have that legislation, so it's kind of perverse to call that "right" to work. And they have average lower salaries than states that don't have right to work legislation.

So it doesn't "bring back power" to the worker. Quite the contrary, it just tips the scales even more in favour of the corporations.

You are aware that many of these union leaders are part of the 1%? Unions and their leaders aren't out for the little guy, they're about increasing the membership and dues to support the corporation they've all become.

Unions are less and less about the little guy. The average worker. I saw it during my time with Rexall/Katz Group. Today, they're more interested in politics and supporting the bloating bureaucracy they've become.

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

"Job security" is non-existent in a global market.

A smart person these days keeps their options open and the even smarter person takes control of their own fate by starting their own business so they are not subject to the whims of some c0cksucking accountant who decides that someone in India can do your job for 20% of what it costs for you to do it.

If everyone quit their jobs and went into their own one-person business, the economy would collapse and we would all be living like they did back in the pioneer days.

[BeaverFever]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

You are aware that many of these union leaders are part of the 1%?

Proof please.

[andyt]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/who-are-c ... -1.1703321

Income of 191,400 in 2013. Probably are some big union leaders who make that. But I thought the argument is you have to pay CEO's top salaries to attract good candidates, whether in business or all those phony corps that govts like to create. Doesn't that apply to unions?

[sandorski]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Minimum wage is a construct that keeps certain classes of people unemployed and dependent on public assistance.

Period.

How about the Employed and dependent on Public Assistance?

[sandorski]

The current trends are unsustainable. Assuming the continuation as a First World nation anyway. The Third World exists, after all, I just don't feel like joining it.

This is why I increasingly feel like going back on something I have said repeatedly that I would never do. That is, to Vote NDP in the next Federal Election(whether that's the best choice I dunno, but it sends a message). The free ride for Corporatism and Oligarchism needs to stop. The Government, being the representative of the Population, needs to once again represent that Population and not private interests.

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Minimum wage is a construct that keeps certain classes of people unemployed and dependent on public assistance.

Period.

So is outlawing slavery. What's your point?

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

T

$1:

he situation is likely worse than we think. For the "quality" of Canadian employment — meaning less job security and fewer benefits — is currently at a 25-year low, 10 per cent below what it was in the 1990s, according to the latest CIBC work quality index.

Even in the glittering horseshoe of Southern Ontario, barely half of working adults have full-time permanent jobs, and almost all job growth now seems only to expand the insecure work, the kind that has little prospect of outstripping inflation.

It's hard to escape the feeling that even as our societies grow richer we are, bizarrely, looping backwards.

"The GDP per capita keeps going up. The problem is that we're not sharing the wealth at all equitably," says Wayne Lewchuk of McMaster University who researches precarious employment. "In many ways we've gone back to a 1920s mentality"

The best job security is adaptability/flexibility and continuing to learn and re-invent yourself whenever necessary.

I've had three different careers (four if you count teaching English overseas for close to three years a career) in the last 20 years. During each one, I worked my ass off to learn not only the tricks of the trade but to increase my skillset in the industry to make myself more employable and more valuable.

The days of learning to make widgets and then doing the same job (or nearly the same job) for the next 40 years is almost totally gone. Unless you get a professional degree (medicine, law, engineering, pharmacist, etc.) you have to be ready to adapt to whatever role comes your way. That might mean a downturn here and there, but in the long run, you'll benefit from other skills you picked up along the way.

[Lemmy]

Unions are not the cause of the exodus of manufacturing in Canada. All this talk of the jobs that we've lost but no discussion of the jobs that have replaced them. Why is anyone crying about the loss of dirty, shitty factory jobs? Who the hell wants to live a life that way anyway?

The unemployment rate hasn't changed much over the past 50 years. So the myth that jobs have been lost is just that.